PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E99)
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1022 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1022 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1022 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1022 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would replace outdated disability terminology in three District of Columbia court-jurisdiction provisions—rules about which matters courts can hear. The provisions concern the U.S. District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court. Each would use the wording “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.”
(a) Jurisdiction of United States District Court Section 11–501(2)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking substantially retarded persons and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
(b) Jurisdiction of Superior Court Section 11–921(a)(4)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking substantially retarded persons and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
(c) Jurisdiction of Family Court Section 11–1101(a)(15), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking the at least moderately mentally retarded and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
Section 1 would name the bill the “Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act.”
This Act may be cited as the Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act.
For both the U.S. District Court and Superior Court provisions, the bill would replace “substantially retarded persons” with “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.”
(a) Jurisdiction of United States District Court Section 11–501(2)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking substantially retarded persons and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
(b) Jurisdiction of Superior Court Section 11–921(a)(4)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking substantially retarded persons and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
For the Family Court provision, the bill would replace “the at least moderately mentally retarded” with “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.” The replacement wording does not retain “at least.”
(c) Jurisdiction of Family Court Section 11–1101(a)(15), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking the at least moderately mentally retarded and inserting persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
The supplied action snapshot, updated August 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 5, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-14T08:05:47Z. 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not resolve the scope questions created by the missing statutory context.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI